Prepare

Realistically, growth was far above where it should have been for close to seven years because of the Fed induced lending boom, insane lending standards, and extreme leverage and risk taking everywhere epitomized by "liar loans" and zero-percent down housing. Now is the payback time. We should be expecting growth to be below trend for the next seven years, with a few outliers tossed in for good measure to keep everyone excessively optimistic.

- Mish

1 And it came to pass at the end of two full years, that Pharaoh dreamed: and, behold, he stood by the river.

2 And, behold, there came up out of the river seven well favored kine and fatfleshed; and they fed in a meadow.

3 And, behold, seven other kine came up after them out of the river, ill favored and leanfleshed; and stood by the other kine upon the brink of the river.

4 And the ill favored and leanfleshed kine did eat up the seven well favored and fat kine. So Pharaoh awoke.

5 And he slept and dreamed the second time: and, behold, seven ears of corn came up upon one stalk, rank and good.

6 And, behold, seven thin ears and blasted with the east wind sprung up after them.

7 And the seven thin ears devoured the seven rank and full ears. And Pharaoh awoke, and, behold, it was a dream.

8 And it came to pass in the morning that his spirit was troubled; and he sent and called for all the magicians of Egypt, and all the wise men thereof: and Pharaoh told them his dream; but there was none that could interpret them unto Pharaoh.

- Genesis, Chapter 41

The East is [in the] Red

Here's an interesting one: the Contrarian Investor reckons a credit bubble could be brewing in China.

For now, a cloud no bigger than your fist on the horizon; but sometime... This is how we ourselves started, back in the 80s.

Masters of the Universe vs. the Lord's Elect

A bright gleam has caught the helmets of our bankers. Goldman Sachs is set to pay an average £500,000 bonus to its London traders. This modest lagniappe is the equivalent of merely 20 years' median annual remuneration for NHS nurses. It is heartening to see that amid the gloom of an economy wrecked by... well, anyway, I'm sure we all agree that they deserve it. Indeed, more; but we must hope they may reasonably expect further such emoluments in the years to come. Nothing is too good for our money-boys, or for the politicians whom they will accommodate when put out to grass.

On an unrelated note, I've suddenly recalled the episode in Evelyn Waugh's "Decline and Fall" where Paul Pennyfeather meets a madman in prison:

"Well, one day I was just sweeping out the shop before shutting up when the angel of the Lord came in. I didn't know who it was at first. "Just in time," I said. "What can I do for you?" Then I noticed that all about him there was a red flame and a circle of flame over his head, same as I've been telling you. Then he told me how the Lord had numbered His elect and the day of tribulation was at hand. "Kill and spare not," he says."

Fortunately, the nutter's victim is a Modern Churchman, not a vitally important, wealth-creating banker.

Many market "shorts" are due to expire on Friday, I understand. Perhaps the market - a free and unmanipulated market, you may be sure - will change its mood next week.

PS

The S&P 500 closed above 900 points yesterday. "Mish" has said that it could easily fall below 500 points, or stall for years. He is against "buy and hold." So who profits if the poor layman is persuaded to stay in the market?

Regardless of what strategy one uses, it is a horrible idea to hold stocks throughout recessions.

Why Is Bad Advice So Common?

Clearly, stay the course is bad advice. So why is it so common? A personal anecdote might help explain things: In January of this year, an investment advisor from Wachovia Securities called me up and stated "Mish, I am sitting on millions because I see nothing I like". I told the person I did not like much either and that Sitka Pacific was heavily in cash and or hedged. His response was "Well, I do not get paid anything if my clients are sitting in cash".

I called up a rep at Merrill Lynch and he said the same thing, that reps for Merrill Lynch do not get paid if their clients are sitting in cash.

Massive Conflict of Interest

Notice the massive conflict of interest possibilities. Reps for various broker dealers have a vested interest in keeping clients 100% invested 100% of the time, even if they know it is wrong. And so it is every recession, bad advice permeates the airwaves and internet "Stay The Course".

We own you

The Big Picture selects several articles for us on US debt.

This one points out that to balance the US budget with borrowing, new bonds must be sold totalling 3 times the amount issued last year. Bearing in mind that there's less money around, and that people are getting nervous about America's credit rating, inflation and the value of the dollar on the international market, it seems very unlikely that this new debt auction would succeed; and if it did, it would have to be on the basis of higher interest rates, to factor-in the various increased risks.

Alternatively, it's time for the repo man - with a twist. Nassim Taleb and Mark Spitznagel suggest that banks could take part of homeowners' equity in exchange for lower interest rates. But if houses continue to decline in price? I bet the banks have thought of that, so if such a scheme were introduced, they'd want a bigger share than most homeowners would be willing to give them. My guess is that when houseowners realize that the market isn't going to turn soon, there'll be more voluntary bankruptcies and doorkeys in the post. That, plus rising and lengthening unemployment could set off the domino chain.

But returning to the Sprott analysis, note that late last year, 28% of US debt was foreign-owned. Look out for some form of debt-for-equity here - if not the sale of equities, then in the form of favours and concessions. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

It's just the way things are?

UPDATE: The Big Picture begs to differ with the no-blame angle, and names names...

I've asked several times before, whether any country could have played it differently and avoided getting involved in The Crash. Then I read this article (htp: Jesse) about ex-BIS economist William White, and near the end there's an indication that maybe it's not simply about baddies and goodies:

White is more concerned about the things he doesn't understand. New Zealand is a case in point. Interest rates were raised early in the crisis there, and yet the central bank was unable to come to grips with the credit bubble. Investors were apparently borrowing cheap money from foreign lenders.

This is the sort of thing that worries him. "That's when you have to ask yourself: Who exactly is controlling the whole thing anymore?"

Perhaps his model has a flaw in that regard. Could it be possible that central bankers today have far less influence than he assumes?

The thought causes him to wrinkle his brow for a moment. Then he smiles, says his goodbyes and quickly disappears into a Paris Metro station.

...this time it vanished quite slowly, beginning with the end of the tail, and ending with the grin, which remained some time after the rest of it had gone.

They

Lots of people now muttering darkly. But if we think we know what They are up to, and think we can't thwart Them, there should be some way to exploit the situation. For example, if They are manipulating the price of gold to keep it down for as long as possible, then surely it's a great time to buy it before They run out of possible.

Can't we do better than call vainly for somebody to restore justice to the world? Because that's the one thing that won't happen.

So, any ideas?

For example, what to do about the New World Order coinage unveiled by Medvedev the other day?

If you have a son or daughter, would you advise him/her to join GS and their ilk? Or McKinsey? Or emigrate?

KBO

From Colwyn Bay to Kettering
They're sobbing themselves to sleep,
The shrieks and wails
In the Yorkshire dales
Have even depressed the sheep.
In rather vulgar lettering
A very disgruntled group
Have posted bills
On the Cotswold Hills
To prove that we're in the soup.
While begging Kipling's pardon
There's one thing we know for sure
If England is a garden
We ought to have more manure.
Hurray-hurray-hurray!
Suffering and dismay.

Noel Coward.

... ho.

An astrologer writes

Russell Grant is trenchant in his criticism of feckless governments and financial advisers.

Next market peak due in... 2018 - if society's still around by then

See here. Back in November, I figured that inflation-adjusted Dow took 16 years to decline from 1966 to 1982, and my guess is that we're on a similar inflation-fuelled ride, so starting with the last peak in 2000, we might think about hitting bottom in real terms in 2016.

On the other hand, history doesn't repeat, it rhymes. In 1966 China was... a disaster area. The world economy is much more interconnected now, and the tide is Eastwards, and big business is global. The company you invest in, if US or UK-based, may still be making good profits on its overseas earnings, even if domestic workers are all on the dole.

A recovery for the investors may happen sooner, and the market bottom may not be so deep in nominal terms (currency-adjusted is something else: look at what has happened to the dollar and pound; and what may yet happen). I think there's a big disconnect between the markets and Joe Average, since the extra wealth from 1980 on has mostly accrued to the top layer of society.

The concentration of money into fewer hands means that investment issues must inevitably give way to considerations of maintaining (repairing) the social and political fabric of our democracies.

Ho, ho

Where did the funny money go?

A few days ago, I charted American public debt in the 2oth century. I also wrote to the Spectator (they didn't publish) to point out that Ronald Reagan and the Bushes were far from conservative when it came to fiscal matters, and that this did not result in benefit to the average American.

Now I come across a graph that makes it plain:

I suppose much the same happened here in the UK. So that's why we got all those posh-cooking and property-in -Provence TV programmes. We were encouraged to dream about the top echelon, not try to join them. As Eva Peron said, "I am taking the jewels from the oligarchs for you"; but somehow we never got to wear them ourselves. Not unless we went into hock for them.

This Wiki entry on the Gini coefficient remarks "Overall, there is a clear negative correlation between Gini coefficient and GDP per capita; although the U.S.A, Hong Kong and Singapore are all rich and have high Gini coefficients." Perhaps there is going to be a reversion to the standard international model: a poorer USA with a high Gini coefficient. Or (same source) a reversion to the social stratification of 1929:

"Gini indices for the United States at various times, according to the US Census Bureau:

1929: 45.0 (estimated)
1947: 37.6 (estimated)
1967: 39.7 (first year reported)
1968: 38.6 (lowest index reported)
1970: 39.4
1980: 40.3
1990: 42.8
2000: 46.2
2007: 46.3"

This blog projects a Gini convergence between the USA and Mexico - perhaps it makes sense, on the reversion-to-mean basis:

The sun also rises

Jesse:

... the governance of Britain which as we have said is semi-feudal, ruled by a few corporations and the wealthy elite in partnership with essentially a one party government.This will go a long way in helping to understand the "British disease" of economic stagnation. You start by crippling the middle class through debt indebtedness to a corporate elite.

So sorry, an error in transcription: for Britain and British, I should have written Japan and Japanese. Gomen nasai. But an understandable mistake, you may think. How much difference will a regime change in the UK make? The inclusion of Ken "fags and Bilberberg" Clarke on the Opposition team seems a deadly marker to me.

Returning to our muttons... Jesse has been focusing on the Land of the Rising Sun recently. He's pointed out that an ageing demographic structure is a major brake on the economy, especially with tight controls on immigration (though we in the UK may have have drawn the wrong conclusion from this); and today he looks at how the Japanese have organised themselves to reduce energy costs and oil dependency.

Especially the car: "I have long thought of cars as vampires sucking the economic life out of every household in the US. And the risk of death and serious injury from car accidents is about half what it is in the US (although the statistics may not be directly comparable)." And considered from a coldly economic point of view, think of the enormous overall costs of those deaths; and the possibly far greater costs of medical care and other support for the vast and growing army of injured and permanently disabled.

It's well worth reading the whole letter from Jesse's friend in Japan - not just about energy, but preventive healthcare etc. They walk to McDonald's - not waddle. They're organising themselves; so can we.

Faber: correction, then inflation

Cash for now, while we wait for the second half selloff; then stocks and gold to hedge against inflation, says the good Doctor.

Dow 400?

Tim Iacono quotes the Elliott Wave people:

For the record, EWFF also shows a "grand supercycle," beginning in January 2000 and ending at 400. Yes, that was FOUR HUNDRED.

And I thought I was being Eeyorish at 2,000.

Approaching the three-day week?

It begins; dig out the loon pants and beads. "If you're going to San Franciscooooo..."

Mr Schwarzenegger also issued an executive order mandating that many state offices close the first, second and third Friday of each month until June 2010 in an attempt to save money.

Market support

Denninger:

... a handful of banks, most specifically Goldman Sachs, constitute the majority of NYSE trading volume... This "back and forth trade" between a handful of institutions is nothing more than the old "pump and dump" game that has been played in the OTC market forever - and almost always screws the individual investor.

This is no different than you and I selling a house back and forth between us repeatedly, each time at a higher price. We both appear to be geniuses as we're both making a "profit", right?

Well, no. One of us is destined to take a horrifying loss if we do not find a sucker to make the final transaction with.

I wondered what was keeping it all up. And sooner or later...

P.S. Rob Kirby strongly suspects that similar manipulation is going on in oil and gold - one kept up, the other down. (For an update on the latter, click on the goldcam.)

The dolorous stroke

Another letter to The Spectator

Sir:

Irwin Stelzer (“No more consensus: this time there is a choice”) holds up Ronald Reagan as a model of a Conservative working for the ordinary voter. He could hardly have chosen a worse exemplar.

From 1947 to 1981 (the year in which Jimmy Carter left, and the Great Communicator took office), US public debt outstanding had fluctuated between $2 – 2.5 trillion (inflation-adjusted to 2009 dollars). Carter ended his Presidency with the debt no worse than it had been when he began. Under Reagan, the debt doubled in real terms (average 9.7% p.a. increase). Bush senior continued this trend (7.3% p.a.); the next two terms under Clinton showed a significant slowing (1.8% p.a.); but Bush junior picked up the pace again (6.3% p.a.) America now has $11.4 trillion public debt around its neck, approximately 5 times the equivalent in 1980, when Reagan asked voters, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”

Well, how much better-off is Joe Average now? In the latest issue of Harvard Business Review, Gary Pisano and Willy Shih conclude that “average real weekly wages have essentially remained flat since 1980.” Instead, the “trickle-down effect” has turned out to be a torrent for the upper stratum only: in a 2006 speech reviewing hourly wage rate increases from 1973 – 2005, the economist Janet Yellen, of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, said “... the growth was heavily concentrated at the very tip of the top, that is, the top 1 percent”. The rest played catch-up by taking on extra personal debt: an investment analyst quoted in The Economist (22 January 2009) says “... the share of household and consumer debt alone went up from 100% of GDP in 1980 to 173% today, equivalent to around $6 trillion of extra borrowing.” Naturally, this process was much to the advantage of bankers, brokers and others in the top 1%.

In short, America has been pretty nearly busted by and for its elite. So much for the party of smaller government; so much for supporting the core Conservative, hard-working average wage-earner; not so much clear blue water, as a tide of red ink. One can only hope that the next British Conservative government, if there is one, will seek not to emulate Reagan and the Bushes.

Yours,

Down

Read Brad Setser on the USA's deterioration in the net international investment position.
The left-hand scale is in $billions.

To quote Status Quo, "down down, deeper and down".